Concomitant Administration of Proton Pump Inhibitors and Capecitabine is Associated With Increased Recurrence Risk in Early Stage Colorectal Cancer Patients

Differential functionality of fluoropyrimidine nucleosides for safe cancer therapy

Chemotherapies are standard care for most cancer types. Pyrimidine analogs including 5-fluorouracil, cytosine arabinoside, 5-azacytidine, and gemcitabine are effective drugs that are utilized as part of a number of anticancer regimens. However, their lack of cell-specificity results in severe side effects. Therefore, there is a capacity to improve the efficacy of such therapies, while decreasing unwanted side effects. Here, we report that while 5-fluorocytosine is not chemotherapeutic in itself, incorporated into a ribonucleoside and more importantly into an RNA oligonucleotide, it induces cytotoxic effects on cancer cells in vitro. Interestingly, these effects are rescued by both uridine and thymidine. Similarly, in-vitro 2'-deoxy-5-fluorocytidine inhibits the growth of tumor cells but has the advantage of being less toxic to human primary cells compared with 5-fluorocytidine, suggesting that the deoxyribonucleoside could exhibit less side-effects in vivo. Thus, this work indicates that the potency of 5-fluorocytidine and 2'-deoxy-5-fluorocytidine should be further explored. In particular, oligonucleotides incorporating 5-fluorocytosine could be novel chemotherapeutic drugs that could be formulated in cancer-specific particles for safe and efficacious cancer treatments.

Evaluating the Role of Methylated Circulating Tumor DNA in Combination With Pathological Prognostic Factors for Predicting Recurrence of Colorectal Cancer

Background

Colorectal cancer (CRC) has a high rate of recurrence, in particular for advanced disease, but prognosis based on staging and pathology at surgery can have limited efficacy. The presence of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) at diagnosis could be used to improve the prediction for disease recurrence.

Objectives

To assess the impact of detecting methylated BCAT1/IKZF1 ctDNA at diagnosis in combination with demographic, lifestyle, clinical factors and tumor pathology, to assess predictive value for recurrence.

Design

A retrospective cohort study.

Methods

The cohort included 180 patients (36 with recurrent CRC), who had undergone complete treatment and surveillance for a minimum of 3 years. Participant clinical details and ctDNA methylated BCAT1/IKZF1 results were compared between those with and without recurrence, and cox regression analysis assessed each factor on disease-free survival.

Results

Clinical factors independently associated with reduced disease-free survival included nodal involvement (HR = 3.83, 95% CI 1.56-9.43, P = .003), M1 stage (HR = 4.41, 95% CI 1.18-16.45, P = .027), a resection margin less than 2 mm (HR = 4.60, 95% CI 1.19-17.76, P = .027), perineural involvement (HR = 2.50, 95% CI 1.01-6.17, P = .047) and distal tumors (HR = 3.13, 95% CI 1.07-9.18, P = .037). Methylated BCAT1/IKZF1 was detected in 51.7% (93/180) of pre-treatment plasma samples. When a positive ctDNA finding was considered in combination with these clinical prognostic factors, there was improved predictive power of recurrence for patients with perineural involvement (HR = 4.44, 95% CI 1.92-10.26, P < .001), and it marginally improved the predictive factor for M1 stage (HR = 7.59, 95% CI 2.30-25.07, P = .001) and distal tumors (HR = 5.04, 95% CI 1.88-13.49, P = .001).

Conclusions

Nodal invasion, metastatic disease, distal tumor site, low resection margins and perineural invasion were associated with disease recurrence. Pre-treatment methylated ctDNA measurement can improve the predictive value for recurrence in a subset of patients, particularly those with perineural involvement.

Registration

Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry #12611000318987.

Influence of proton pump inhibitors on the pathological response of rectal cancer: a multicentre study

Background

The standard neoadjuvant therapy for rectal cancer involves fluoropyrimidines and radiotherapy and, most recently, total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT). A drug-drug interaction between fluoropyrimidines and proton-pump inhibitors (PPI) was suggested, with a negative impact on oncological outcomes in breast, colon and gastric cancers. Little is known about such an effect on rectal tumours. We aimed to evaluate the impact of PPI utilisation on the pathological response after chemoradiation for rectal cancer.

Materials and methods

Retrospective multicentre study of rectal cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy with capecitabine (cohort 1) or 5-fluororuracil (5-FU) (cohort 2); TNT with oxaliplatin-based regimens was allowed. The pathological response was considered a complete (ypCR) or complete + partial (ypCR + ypPR) according to American Joint Committee on Cancer. PPI use was considered at any time during the neoadjuvant period if concomitant to fluoropyrimidines.

Results

From January 2007 to November 2020, 251 patients received capecitabine and 196 5-FU. The rates of PPI use in cohorts 1 and 2 were 20.3% and 26.5%, respectively. TNT was offered to 18.3% in cohort 1. PPI use did not influence ypCR in cohort 1 (yes versus no: 29.4% versus 19.5%; p = 0.13) or 2 (yes versus no: 25.0% versus 26.4%; p = 1.0). Similar ypCR + ypPR were observed in both cohorts 1 (76.5% versus 72.0%; p = 0.60) and 2 (86.5% versus 76.4%; p = 0.16). PPI use was not associated with pathological response in multivariable analysis. PPI users experienced more grade 3 or higher diarrhoea and infections.

Conclusion

PPI concomitant to capecitabine/5-FU chemoradiation did not influence the pathological response in rectal cancer but was associated with more treatment-related adverse events.

Effects of Proton Pump Inhibitors Intake During Chemoradiotherapy for Rectal Cancer: a Retrospective Cohort Study

PURPOSE

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are one of the most widely used drugs worldwide and are involved in several drug interactions. Recently, several studies have suggested that PPIs may interfere with the efficacy of capecitabine. This study primarily aimed to investigate the effects of PPI intake on the pathologic response rate of patients with locally advanced rectal cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy with capecitabine.

METHOD

A retrospective study was conducted at a French Comprehensive Cancer Center. Patients with locally advanced rectal cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery were included in the study. Demographic parameters, treatment characteristics, survival data, and PPI intake data were collected. Frequencies and percentages were reported for categorical variables and medians and interquartile ranges for continuous variables. Distribution of variables was compared according to PPI treatment using the chi-square test or Fisher's exact test for categorical data and nonparametric Wilcoxon tests for continuous variables. Survival data were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using the log-rank test.

RESULTS

In total, 215 patients were included, of whom 135 (62.8%) were men. The PPI intake frequency was 16.1%. The rate of complete pathological response was not significantly lower in patients on PPIs than in those not on PPIs (8.7% vs. 19%, p = 0.36). PPI intake was not associated with a statistically significant decrease in recurrence-free survival (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.26, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.61-2.60, p = 0.54) or overall survival (HR = 0.95, 95% CI 0.33-2.76, p = 0.93).

CONCLUSION

No significant association was observed between PPI co-medication and complete pathological response or survival in patients treated for locally advanced rectal cancer. However, the safety of PPIs could not be confirmed. Further ancillary studies of prospective clinical trials or studies using the Health Data Hub are necessary to explore the effects of PPIs on rectal cancer more accurately.

Challenges in Diagnosis and Treatment of Pancreatic Exocrine Insufficiency among Patients with Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is the most common malignancy of the pancreas and is associated with an extremely poor prognosis. Many PDAC patients suffer from profound nutritional complications such as nutrient deficiencies, weight loss, malnutrition, and cancer cachexia. These complications cause barriers to effective anticancer treatments, gravely influence their quality of life, and decrease their overall survival. Pancreatic exocrine insufficiency (PEI) is defined as impaired digestion due to inadequate secretion of pancreatic enzymes and is a common cause of malnutrition in PDAC. This review first summarizes the existing literature around malnutrition in PDAC, with a particular focus on PEI and its management with pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy (PERT). Second, we summarize existing guidelines and recommendations for the management of PEI among patients with PDAC. Lastly, we highlight potential gaps of knowledge of PEI among healthcare providers resulting in underdiagnosis and treatment, which may have implications for the quality of life and overall survival of PDAC patients.

Drug-drug interactions with proton pump inhibitors in cancer patients: an underrecognized cause of treatment failure

New concepts and drugs have revolutionized medical treatment for cancers. These drugs, which are very expensive and usually well tolerated, have dramatically improved cancer prognosis. We must use them wisely for patients to fully benefit. Gastric acid antisecretory drugs and particularly proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) revolutionized the treatment of gastroduodenal ulcers and severe gastroesophageal reflux, but are frequently overused for symptomatic treatment of epigastric pain or heartburn. Long-term acid suppression may alter the efficacy of many anticancer drugs, such as tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) 4/6 inhibitors and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), by either decreasing gastric acid secretion and thus drug absorption, or by modifying the gut microbiome that modulates the response to ICIs. Oncologists thus need to pay particular attention to the concomitant use of PPIs and anticancer drugs. These interactions translate into major clinical impacts, with demonstrated loss of efficacy for some TKIs (erlotinib, gefitinib, pazopanib), and conflicting results with many other oral drugs, including capecitabine and CDK 4/6 inhibitors. Furthermore, the profound changes in the gut microbiome due to using PPIs have shown that the benefit of using ICIs may be suppressed in patients treated with PPIs. As the use of PPIs is not essential, we must apply the precautionary principle. The first sentence of a recent Comment in Nature was "Every day, millions of people are taking medications that will not help them". We fear that every day millions of cancer patients are taking medications that harm them. While this may well be only association and not causation, there is enough to make us pause until we reach a clear answer. All these data should encourage medical oncologists to refrain from prescribing PPIs, explaining to patients the risks of interaction in order to prevent inappropriate prescription by another physician.

The Association between Baseline Proton Pump Inhibitors, Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors, and Chemotherapy: A Systematic Review with Network Meta-Analysis

(1) Although emerging evidence suggests that proton pump inhibitor (PPI)-induced dysbiosis negatively alters treatment response to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in cancer patients, no study systematically investigates the association between PPIs, ICIs, and chemotherapy; (2) Cochrane Library, Embase, Medline, and PubMed were searched from inception to 20 May 2022, to identify relevant studies involving patients receiving ICIs or chemotherapy and reporting survival outcome between PPI users and non-users. Survival outcomes included overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Network meta-analyses were performed using random-effects models. p-scores, with a value between 0 and 1, were calculated to quantify the treatment ranking, with a higher score suggesting a higher probability of greater effectiveness. We also conducted pairwise meta-analyses of observational studies to complement our network meta-analysis; (3) We identified 62 studies involving 26,484 patients (PPI = 8834; non-PPI = 17,650), including non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), urothelial carcinoma (UC), melanoma, renal cell carcinoma (RCC), hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) of the neck and head. Eight post-hoc analyses from 18 randomized-controlled trials were included in our network, which demonstrated that, in advanced NSCLC and UC, patients under ICI treatment with concomitant PPI (p-score: 0.2016) are associated with both poorer OS (HR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.37 to 1.67) and poorer PFS (HR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.25 to 1.61) than those without PPIs (p-score: 1.000). Patients under ICI treatment with concomitant PPI also had poorer OS (HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.07 to 1.31) and poorer PFS (HR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.14 to 1.48) in comparison with those receiving chemotherapy (p-score: 0.6664), implying that PPIs may compromise ICI's effectiveness, making it less effective than chemotherapy. Our pairwise meta-analyses also supported this association. Conversely, PPI has little effect on patients with advanced melanoma, RCC, HCC, and SCC of the neck and head who were treated with ICIs; (4) "PPI-induced dysbiosis" serves as a significant modifier of treatment response in both advanced NSCLC and UC that are treated with ICIs, compromising the effectiveness of ICIs to be less than that of chemotherapy. Thus, clinicians should avoid unnecessary PPI prescription in these patients. "PPI-induced dysbiosis", on the other hand, does not alter the treatment response to ICIs in advanced melanoma, RCC, HCC, and SCC of the head and neck.

Do proton pump inhibitors affect the effectiveness of chemotherapy in colorectal cancer patients? A systematic review with meta-analysis

Proton pump inhibitors (PPI), one of the most commonly prescribed medications, carry a myriad of adverse events. For colorectal cancer (CRC) patients, it still remains unclear whether the concurrent use of proton pump inhibitors (PPI) would negatively affect chemotherapy. PubMed, Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched from inception to 10 June 2022, to identify relevant studies involving CRC patients receiving chemotherapy and reporting comparative survival outcomes between PPI users and non-users. Meta-analyses were performed using random-effects models. We identified 16 studies involving 8,188 patients (PPI = 1,789; non-PPI = 6,329) receiving either capecitabine-based or fluorouracil-based regimens. The overall survival (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.91 to 1.15; I² = 0%) and progression-free survival (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.98 to 1.35; I² = 29%) were similar between PPI users and non-users in patients taking capecitabine-based regimens, with low statis-tical heterogeneity. Although the subgroup analysis indicated that early-stage cancer patients taking capecitabine monotherapy with concurrent PPI had a significantly higher disease progression rate (HR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.21 to 3.16; I² = 0%) than those who did not use PPIs, both groups had comparable all-cause mortality (HR, 1.31; 95% CI, 0.75 to 2.29; I² = 0%). On the other hand, there was little difference in both OS and PFS in both early- and end-stage patients taking capecitabine combination therapy between PPI users and non-users. Conversely, the use of concomitant PPI in patients taking fluorouracil-based regimens contributed to a marginally significant higher all-cause mortality (HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.40; I² = 74%), but with high statistical heterogeneity. In conclusion, PPI has little survival influence on CRC patients treated with capecitabine-based regimens, especially in patients taking capecitabine combination therapy. Thus, it should be safe for clinicians to prescribe PPI in these patients. Although patients treated with fluorouracil-based regimens with concomitant PPI trended toward higher all-cause mortality, results were subject to considerable heterogeneity. Systematic Review Registration: identifier https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022338161.

Re-thinking the possible interaction between proton pump inhibitors and capecitabine

Proton Pump Inhibitors (PPI) rank within the top ten most prescribed medications in Europe and USA. A high frequency of PPI use has been reported amongst patients undergoing chemotherapy, to mitigate treatment-induced gastritis or gastro-oesophageal reflux. Several recent, mostly retrospective, observational studies have reported inferior survival outcomes among patients on capecitabine who concomitantly use PPI. Whilst this association is yet to be definitively established, given the prominence of capecitabine as an anti-cancer treatment with multiple indications, these reports have raised concern within the oncological community and drug regulatory bodies worldwide. Currently, the leading mechanism of interaction postulated in these reports has focussed on the pH altering effects of PPI and how this could diminish capecitabine absorption, leading to a decrease in its bioavailability. In this discourse, we endeavour to summarise plausible pharmacokinetic interactions between PPI and capecitabine. We provide a basis for our argument against the currently proposed mechanism of interaction. We also highlight the long-term effects of PPI on health outcomes, and how PPI use itself could lead to poorer outcomes, independent of capecitabine.

Association between the Co-administration of Histamine H2 Receptor Antagonists and the Effectiveness of Capecitabine in Patients with Colorectal Cancer: Propensity Score Analysis

Background: The association between the effectiveness of capecitabine and the concomitant administration of gastric acid suppressants remains controversial. We aimed to clarify whether the effectiveness of capecitabine is affected by the co-administration of histamine H₂ receptor antagonists (H₂RAs) in early-stage colorectal cancer (CRC) patients using real-world data. Methods: This multicenter, retrospective, observational study included consecutive patients with stage II-III CRC who received either capecitabine monotherapy or the CapeOX regimen (capecitabine and oxaliplatin) as adjuvant therapy between January 2009 and December 2014 in Japan. Relapse-free survival (RFS) and overall survival were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Additionally, multivariable Cox proportional hazards model, propensity score adjustment, and inverse probability of treatment weighting analyses were performed. Results: In total, 552 patients were included in this study, of which 30 were co-administered H₂RAs. RFS at five years was 76.7% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 57.2-88.1%) and 79.8% (95% CI: 76.0-83.0%) in the H₂RA and non-H₂RA groups, respectively. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards model and propensity score-adjusted analyses showed that the co-administration of H₂RAs was associated with a poor RFS among those receiving capecitabine monotherapy (hazard ratio [HR], 2.01; 95% CI: 0.86-4.70 and HR, 1.81; 95% CI: 0.77-4.22, respectively). In contrast, these results were inconsistent with the group receiving the CapeOX regimen. Conclusions: The study findings suggest that the co-administration of H₂RAs may not reduce the effectiveness of capecitabine therapy in patients with early-stage CRC. To confirm this relationship, a prospective study with a pharmacokinetic approach is needed.

Proton pump inhibitors affect capecitabine efficacy in patients with stage II-III colorectal cancer: a multicenter retrospective study

The association between capecitabine efficacy and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) is controversial. Here, we determined whether co-administration of PPIs affects the real-world effectiveness of capecitabine. This retrospective observational study included consecutive patients with stage II–III colorectal cancer (CRC) who received adjuvant capecitabine monotherapy or CapeOX (capecitabine and oxaliplatin) between January 2009 and December 2014 at nine participating institutions. The primary endpoint was the difference in relapse-free survival (RFS) between patients who received PPIs and those who did not and was estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method. Overall survival (OS) was the secondary endpoint. Multivariable analysis of RFS and OS was performed using a Cox proportional hazards model, propensity score adjustment, and inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) analyses. Data from 606 patients were evaluated, 54 of whom had received a PPI. PPI-treated patients tended to have poorer RFS and OS than patients treated without PPIs. The hazard ratio for RFS with capecitabine monotherapy was 2.48 (95% confidence interval: 1.22–5.07). These results were consistent with sensitivity analyses performed using propensity score adjustment and IPTW methods. Co-administration of PPIs may reduce the effectiveness of capecitabine and negatively impact patients with stage II–III CRC.

Proton Pump Inhibitors and Cancer: Current State of Play

Background: Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are one of the most widely used drugs worldwide and are overprescribed in patients with cancer; there is increasing evidence of their effects on cancer development and survival. The objective of this narrative review is to comprehensively identify cancer medications that have clinically meaningful drug–drug interactions (DDIs) with PPIs, including loss of efficacy or adverse effects, and to explore the association between PPIs and cancer.

Methods: A PubMed search of English language studies published from 1 January 2016, to 1 June 2021 was conducted. The search terms included “proton pump inhibitors,” “cancer,” “chemotherapy,” “immunotherapy,” “hormonotherapies,” “targeted therapies,” “tyrosine kinase inhibitors,” and “gut microbiome”. Recent and relevant clinical trials, meta-analyses, and reviews were included.

Results: PPIs may have pro-tumor activity by increasing plasma gastrin levels or anti-tumor activity by inhibiting V-ATPases. However, their impact on cancer survival remains unclear. PPIs may decrease the efficacy of some antineoplastic agents through direct DDIs (e.g., some tyrosine kinase inhibitors, capecitabine, irinotecan, methotrexate). More complex DDIs seem to exist for immunotherapies with indirect interactions through the microbiome. PPIs worsen hypomagnesemia, bone loss, iron, and vitamin B12 deficiencies but may have a protective effect on the renal system.

Discussion/Conclusions: PPIs may interact with the cancer microbiome and the efficacy of various antineoplastic agents, although only a few DDIs involving PPIs are clinically significant. Further pharmaco-epidemiological studies are warranted, but physicians should be aware of the potential consequences of PPI use, which should be dose appropriate and prescribed according to guidelines.

Toxicity profile, adverse drug reactions and drug-drug interactions among geriatric cancer patients under metronomic chemotherapy in a South Indian tertiary care hospital

OBJECTIVE

The study aims to examine the toxicity profile, pattern of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) and drug-drug interactions (DDIs) in geriatric cancer patients receiving metronomic chemotherapy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients were followed after each cycle till 12 weeks. Haematological parameters such as complete blood count, liver function test and renal function test were recorded from the baseline to the final visit. The Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) scale was used to characterise the toxicity profile. ADRs that the patients had were documented and assessed for its causality, severity and preventability. The Lexicomp drug interaction checker was used to grade DDIs.

RESULTS

Of 129 patients, according to CTCAE grading, haemoglobin indicated grade 1 toxicity, while other haematological parameters revealed no toxicity. Although there was a statistically significant difference in ALT, alkaline phosphate, serum creatinine and potassium (p < 0.05), it was not clinically significant. A total of 226 ADRs were documented. Anaemia was the most frequently occurred ADR (14%) and Capecitabine caused the highest number of ADRs. Assessments of causality showed that the majority of cases are "possible" (63%). In evaluating the severity of ADRs, 99% ADRs were "mild" and 61% of ADRs were "probably" preventable. Upon assessing the DDIs, 82% of the prescriptions had "no known interaction".

CONCLUSION

Metronomic chemotherapy in geriatric cancer patients exhibited grade 1 toxicity for haemoglobin. Anemia was the most common ADRs. The majority of cases were "possible" in causality, "mild" in severity, and "probably" preventable. The majority of the prescriptions have no known DDIs.

Proton pump inhibitors and colorectal cancer: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

The use of proton pump inhibitors (PPI) is common worldwide, with reports suggesting that they may be overused. Several studies have found that PPI may affect colorectal cancer (CRC) risk.

AIM

To summarize current knowledge on the relationship between PPI and CRC from basic research, epidemiological and clinical studies.

METHODS

This systematic review was based on the patients, interventions, comparisons, outcome models and performed according to PRISMA guidelines. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched from inception until May 17, 2021. The initial search returned 2591 articles, of which, 28 studies met the inclusion criteria for this review. The studies were categorized as basic research studies (n = 12), epidemiological studies (n = 11), and CRC treatment studies (n = 5). The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale or Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool depending on the study design.

RESULTS

Data from basic research indicates that PPI do not stimulate CRC development via the trophic effect of gastrin but instead may paradoxically inhibit it. These studies also suggest that PPI may have properties beneficial for CRC treatment. PPI appear to have anti-tumor properties (omeprazole, pantoprazole), and are potential T lymphokine-activated killer cell-originated protein kinase inhibitors (pantoprazole, ilaprazole), and chemosensitizing agents (pantoprazole). However, these mechanisms have not been confirmed in human trials. Current epidemiological studies suggest that there is no causal association between PPI use and increased CRC risk. Treatment studies show that concomitant PPI and capecitabine use may reduce the efficacy of chemotherapy resulting in poorer oncological outcomes, while also suggesting that pantoprazole may have a chemosensitizing effect with the fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) regimen.

CONCLUSION

An unexpected inhibitory effect of PPI on CRC carcinogenesis by way of several potential mechanisms is noted. This review identifies that different PPI agents may have differential effects on CRC treatment, with practical implications. Prospective studies are warranted to delineate this relationship and assess the role of individual PPI agents.

Effect of the Proton Pump Inhibitor Esomeprazole on the Systemic Exposure of Capecitabine: Results of A Randomized Crossover Trial

Retrospective data suggest that gastric acid reduction by proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) impairs the dissolution and subsequent absorption of capecitabine, and thus potentially reduces the capecitabine exposure. Therefore, we examined prospectively the effect of esomeprazole on the pharmacokinetics of capecitabine. In this randomized crossover study, patients with cancer were assigned to 2 sequence groups, each consisting of 3 phases: capecitabine with esomeprazole administration 3 hours before (phase A), capecitabine alone (phase B), and capecitabine concomitant with cola and esomeprazole co-administration 3 hours before (phase C). The primary end point was the relative difference (RD) in exposure to capecitabine assessed by the area under the plasma concentration-time curve from zero to infinity (AUC_0-inf ) and analyzed by a linear mixed effect model. Twenty-two evaluable patients were included in the analysis. After esomeprazole, there was a 18.9% increase in AUC_0-inf of capecitabine (95% confidence interval (CI) -10.0% to 57.0%, P = 0.36). In addition, capecitabine half-life was significantly longer after esomeprazole (median 0.63 hours vs. 0.46 hours, P = 0.005). Concomitant cola did not completely reverse the effects observed after esomeprazole (RD 3.3% (95% CI -16.3 to 27.4%, P = 1.00). Capecitabine exposure is not negatively influenced by esomeprazole cotreatment. Therefore, altered capecitabine pharmacokinetics do not explain the assumed worse clinical outcome of PPI-cotreated patients with cancer.

Concomitant Use of Proton Pump Inhibitors With Capecitabine Based Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer: Is it Safe?

AIM

Capecitabine (Cape) is routinely used for the neoadjuvant chemoradiation treatment (NACRT) of locally advanced rectal cancers (LARCs). Previous reports have suggested that the concomitant use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) may affect the efficacy of Cape, although the true effect of PPIs when used with Cape as a radiosensitizer for neoadjuvant radiation is unclear. The aim of our study was to evaluate the impact of concurrent PPI use along with fluorouracil (FU) and Cape based NACRT in terms of pathologic and oncological outcomes, in patients with LARC.

METHODS

LARC patients treated at our center with NACRT from 2010 to 2016 were identified. Postoperative pathology and follow-up outcomes were examined for any differences with relation to the use of PPIs concurrently with FU and Cape based NACRT and adjuvant chemotherapy regimens.

RESULTS

Three hundred four and 204 patients received treatment with FU and Cape based NACRT. No difference in pathologic complete response rate was noted between the 2 arms with the concurrent use of PPIs (25.8% and 25%, respectively, P=0.633); or with and without the use of PPIs in the Cape-NACRT arm specifically (20% and 20.7%, P=0.945). At a median follow-up of 5 years, no statistical difference in local or distant control was noted in the Cape-NACRT patients, with and without concomitant PPI use (P=0.411 and 0.264, respectively).Multivariate analysis showed no association of PPI use and NACRT with Cape, in terms of local control (hazard ratio=0.001, P=0.988) or overall survival (hazard ratio=1.179, confidence interval=0.249-5.579, P=0.835).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study revealed that there was no adverse pathologic or oncological outcome with the concurrent use of PPIs along with Cape-NACRT in the treatment of LARC. We report that it may be safe to use PPIs if essential, in this clinical setting, although it would be wise to exercise caution.

Proton pump inhibitors and survival in patients with colorectal cancer: a Swedish population-based cohort study

BACKGROUND

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are associated with microbiome changes of the gut, which in turn may affect the progression of colorectal cancer (CRC). This study aims to assess the associations between PPI use and all-cause and CRC-specific mortality.

METHODS

We selected all patients registered in the Swedish Prescribed Drug Registry who were diagnosed with CRC between 2006 and 2012 (N = 32,411, 54.9% PPI users) and subsequently followed them through register linkage to the Swedish Causes of Death Registry until December 2013. PPI users were patients with ≥1 post-diagnosis PPI dispensation. Time-dependent Cox-regression models were performed with PPI use as time-varying exposure.

RESULTS

Overall 4746 (14.0%) patients died, with an aHR of 1.38 (95% CI 1.32-1.44) for all-cause mortality comparing PPI users with PPI nonusers. Higher-magnitude associations were observed among male, cancer stage 0-I, rectal cancer and patients receiving CRC surgery. The PPI-all-cause mortality association was also more pronounced comparing new users to non-users (aHR = 1.47, 95%CI 1.40-1.55) than comparing continuous users to non-users (aHR = 1.32, 95%CI 1.24-1.39). The risk estimates for CRC-specific mortality comparing PPI users to PPI nonusers were similar to those for all-cause mortality.

CONCLUSION

PPI use after the CRC diagnosis was associated with increased all-cause and CRC-specific mortality.

Controversial link between proton pump inhibitors and anticancer agents: review of the literature

Drug-drug interactions represent a topic of great interest, not only due to the risk of unexpected adverse events but also due to the possibility of altering the effectiveness of a specific treatment. Inappropriate or concomitant use of drugs can often lead to changes in the bioavailability of various compounds, resulting in pharmacokinetic alterations. A recent example is the concomitant administration of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and anticancer agents. PPIs are overused beyond their classic indications, resulting in a high risk of interactions with other drugs, such as anticancer agents, both PO and intravenous. However, the real clinical impact of concomitant acid suppression therapy and anticancer therapies remains controversial and is not yet fully understood. Certainly, the gut microbiota plays a key role in regulating the response of the immune system, and PPIs can significantly alter the gut microbiome, resulting in gut dysbiosis. Indeed, while the link sometimes appears to lead to negative outcomes, as in the case of immunotherapy, oral capecitabine, or tyrosine kinase inhibitors, in other cases, it seems to enhance the effectiveness of intravenous chemotherapy. In this review, I analyse the possible drug interactions between PPIs and the main classes of anticancer drugs.

Performance of capecitabine in novel combination therapies in colorectal cancer

Colorectal cancer is one of the most common cancers throughout the world, and no definitive cure has ever been found. Perhaps a new insight into the effectiveness of chemotherapy drugs could help better treat patients. Targeted therapies have significantly improved the median overall survival of colorectal cancer patients. One of the standard chemotherapy regimens used for colorectal cancer is capecitabine, which is important in monotherapy and combination therapies. Capecitabine, with other chemotherapeutic agents (irinotecan, oxaliplatin, perifosine, 17-allylamino-17-demethoxygeldanamycin, aspirin, celecoxib, statins, quinacrine, inositol hexaphosphate and inositol, cystine/theanine, curcumin, and isorhamnetin), and biological ones (antibodies) plays an important role in the inhibition of some signaling pathways, increasing survival, reducing tumor growth and side effects of capecitabine. However, some drugs, such as proton pump inhibitors, are negatively related to capecitabine; therefore, the purpose of this work is to review and discuss the performance of capecitabine combination therapies in colorectal cancer.

Proton Pump Inhibitors and Survival in Patients With Colorectal Cancer Receiving Fluoropyrimidine-Based Chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Concomitant use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) may negatively affect the efficacy of anticancer drugs such as fluoropyrimidines in patients with colorectal cancer (CRC). The primary objective of this study was to assess whether there is an association between concomitant PPI use and survival outcomes in patients with CRC treated with a fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A secondary analysis of 6 randomized controlled clinical trials in patients with advanced CRC was conducted using individual patient data through data-sharing platforms. The outcome measures were progression-free survival and overall survival in PPI users and nonusers. Subgroup analysis included the type of chemotherapy, capecitabine versus 5-FU, line of therapy, and addition of a vascular endothelial growth factor receptor inhibitor. Overall pooled hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals were calculated using a random effects model.

RESULTS

A total of 5,594 patients with advanced CRC across 6 trials and 11 trial arms were included; 902 patients were receiving a PPI at trial entry and initiation of chemotherapy. PPI use was significantly associated with worse overall survival (pooled HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.03-1.40; P=.02; I2 for heterogeneity = 69%) and progression-free survival (overall pooled HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.05-1.37; P=.009; I2 = 65%) after adjusting for clinical covariates. Furthermore, the association between concomitant PPI use and survival outcomes was similar across most treatment subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

We speculate that alterations in the gut microbiome, altered immune milieu within the tumor, and interactions through transporters are potential mechanisms behind this association between PPI use and chemotherapy in patients with CRC, which warrant further study. Concomitant use of PPIs is associated with worse survival outcomes in patients with CRC treated with fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy. Clinicians should cautiously consider the concomitant use of PPIs in such patients.

Proton Pump Inhibitor Use and the Efficacy of Chemotherapy in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Post Hoc Analysis of a Randomized Phase III Trial (AXEPT)

BACKGROUND

Concomitant use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) with capecitabine was suggested to be associated with poor outcomes in gastrointestinal cancers. We analyzed the differential impact of PPI use on capecitabine and fluorouracil using the data set from the AXEPT trial, a phase III randomized trial that demonstrated the noninferiority of mXELIRI (modified XELIRI: capecitabine plus irinotecan) to FOLFIRI (leucovorin, fluorouracil, and irinotecan), either with or without bevacizumab in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Out of the per-protocol set (n = 620), patients with information on concomitant medications (n = 482) were included in this post hoc analysis. PPI use was defined as concomitant exposure of capecitabine and the use of any PPI for 20% or more of the study period. The treatment-by-PPI-use interaction was examined after adjusting for stratification factors.

RESULTS

Of the 482 patients, 49 (10.1%) used PPI. Among the PPI users, the mXELIRI group tended to have poorer overall survival compared with the FOLFIRI group. In contrast, among the nonusers, the overall survival of the mXELIRI group was significantly better than that of the FOLFIRI group. Similarly, a trend of worse progression-free survival with mXELIRI compared with FOLFIRI was observed in PPI users but not in nonusers. Treatment-by-PPI-use interaction was significant for overall survival and progression-free survival.

CONCLUSION

The significant interaction between PPI use and the type of fluoropyrimidine in terms of overall and progression-free survival suggests that fluorouracil could be a more favorable option than capecitabine for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer using PPIs.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

This study showed a significant interaction between the use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and the type of fluoropyrimidines. This interaction mainly comes from the positive impact of PPIs in the survival outcomes in the fluorouracil arm rather than a negative impact of PPIs in the capecitabine arm. The possible drug-drug interaction shown in this study suggests that fluorouracil, rather than capecitabine, could be a more appropriate choice of fluoropyrimidine for patients who are taking PPIs in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer.

Proton Pump Inhibitors and Oncologic Treatment Efficacy: A Practical Review of the Literature for Oncologists

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are the most commonly used anti-acid drugs worldwide, including among cancer patients. However, drug-drug interactions between PPIs and other agents may lead to decreased drug absorption with possible reduced therapeutic benefit, or even increased toxicity. Unfortunately, only scarce data exist regarding the safety of concomitant PPI use with anti-cancer agents. We aim at reviewing current evidence on this possible interaction by dividing anti-cancer agents by class. Until further data is available, we encourage healthcare providers to limit unnecessary PPI overuse.

Combination Therapy of High-Dose Rabeprazole Plus Metronomic Capecitabine in Advanced Gastro-Intestinal Cancer: A Randomized Phase II Trial

Simple Summary

This is the first phase II study of high dose rabeprazole repurposing (1.5 mg/kg bid, three days a week) combined with metronomic capecitabine (mCAP), 1500 mg/daily, in gastrointestinal cancer, aimed at evaluating the activity and safety of high-dose proton pump inhibitor in combination with mCAP as salvage treatment in pretreated patients. A 3-months PFS rate of 66% and 57% was reported in the mCAP-rabeprazole and mCAP group, respectively. Although, the adjunct of high dose rabeprazole to mCAP did not improve mCAP activity, the combination of proton pump inhibitor with chemotherapy would deserve to be further investigated.

Abstract

Background: In recent years, proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) have been investigated at high-dose to modulate tumor microenvironment acidification thus restoring chemotherapeutic sensitivity. This is the first trial to study activity and safety of repurposing high dose rabeprazole combined with metronomic capecitabine (mCAP). Methods: A phase II study in which patients with gastrointestinal cancer, refractory to standard treatments, who had a life expectancy >3 months, were blind randomized 1:1 to mCAP, 1500 mg/daily, continuously with or without rabeprazole 1.5 mg/kg bid, three days a week. The primary endpoint was 3-months progression-free survival (PFS). The secondary endpoints were clinical benefit (CB) and overall survival (OS). Safety and plasma concentrations of capecitabine and its metabolites (5′-DFUR and 5-FU) were also evaluated. Results: Sixty-seven (median age 69 years; 63% male; 84% colorectal cancer, 76% ECOG-PS ≤ 1; 84% pretreated with two or more lines of chemotherapy) out of 90 patients screened for eligibility, were randomized to receive mCAP+rabeprazole (n = 32) vs. mCAP (n = 35). All patients were evaluable for response. No significant difference between mCAP+rabeprazole vs. mCAP, in terms of 3-months PFS rate (HR = 1.43, 95%CI 0.53–3.85; p = 0.477), median PFS (HR = 1.22, 95%CI 0.75–2.00, p = 0.420), CB (RR = 0.85, 95%CI 0.29–2.44; p = 0.786) and median OS (HR = 0.89, 95%CI 0.54–1.48; p = 0.664) was observed. However, a 3-year OS rate of 10% and 12% was reported in the mCAP-rabeprazole and mCAP groups, respectively. Overall, no grade 3 or 4 toxicity occurred but grade 1 or 2 adverse event of any type were more frequently in the mCAP+rabeprazole group than in the mCAP (OR 2.83, 95%CI 1.03–7.79; p = 0.043). Finally, there was not statistically significant difference in the plasma concentration of capecitabine and its metabolites between the two groups. Conclusions: Although the adjunct of high dose rabeprazole to mCAP was not shown to affect mCAP activity, as PPI are being investigated worldwide as drugs to be repositioned in cancer treatment and also considering the limited sample size as well as the favorable safety profile of the combination in the present study, further clinical investigations are desirable.

Efficacy of capecitabine when used concomitantly with proton pump inhibitors in cancer patients: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Capectiabine is an oral antineoplastic drug used in multiple malignancies. Proton pump inhibitors (PPI) have been proven to interact with other oral antineoplastic agents. In this systematic review we will summarize the clinical evidence on the efficacy of capecitabine when used concomitantly with PPI.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a systematic literature search on the main databases up to November 2019.

RESULTS

Nine studies met our inclusion criteria: 8 retrospective studies and 1 phase II clinical trial. Patients with colorectal, breast and gastroesophageal were represented. Four out of the 9 studies reported a shorter efficacy outcome in uni- or multivariate analysis when capecitabine was taken concomitantly with PPI than alone.

CONCLUSIONS

Up to date, the clinical evidence reported on the use of capecitabine concomitantly with PPI is scarce and shows conflicting results. While awaiting further data, avoiding misuse of PPI in cancer patients taking capecitabine is recommended.

Impact of Use of Gastric-Acid Suppressants and Oral Anti-Cancer Agents on Survival Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the role of gastric acid suppressant use on outcomes of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and oral chemotherapy. We identified all research evaluating the effect of GAS (gastric acid suppressants) use on patients receiving oral chemotherapy or TKIs for solid tumors. The pooled hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence interval (95%CI) for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were calculated with a fixed-effects or a random effects model. The study population included n = 16 retrospective studies and 372,418 patients. The series concerned gastrointestinal tract tumors (n = 5 studies), renal cell carcinomas (RCC, n = 3 studies), non-small cell lung cancers (NSCLC, n = 5 studies), and soft tissue sarcomas or mixed histologies solid tumors in n = 3 studies. The pooled HRs for OS and PFS were 1.31 (95%CI: 1.20-1.43; p < 0.01) and 1.3 (95%CI 1.07-1.57; p < 0.01) for GAS and no GAS users, respectively. Only studies of EGFR (epidermal growth factor receptor) mutated NSCLC patients receiving TKIs and those with colorectal cancer receiving oral chemotherapy showed a significant correlation between GAS and poor survival. Our study supports the evidence of a possible negative impact of concomitant GAS therapy on survival outcomes of patients receiving oral anti-cancer drugs.

[Proton pump inhibitors and cancers: A hazardous association?]

Proton pump inhibitors, a major progress in gastro-enterology, are globally among the most widely prescribed drugs. But, due to their strong gastric acid inhibition, they can be responsible for side effects, particularly in cancer patients. They are involved in renal function impairment, bone fractures, digestive bacterial overgrowth, particularlyclostridium difficile infections, anemia and hypomagnesemia. Long term use can increase the risks of gastric, pancreatic and liver cancers. They decrease absorption of weak bases drugs, particularly tyrosine kinase inhibitors and capecitabine and are responsible for a poorer prognosis if taken concomitantly with erlotinib, gefitinib and pazopanib. Modification of cyclin dependent kinases is also possible as well as decrease of efficacy of immune check point inhibitors (microbiome modifications). Absoption and efficacy of capecitabine seem also poorer with negative prognosis effect on treatment of gastric and colon cancer. Their long term use, particularly in cancer patients, should probably be avoided.

Prognostic factors of adjuvant chemotherapy discontinuation among stage III colon cancer patients: A survey of medical oncologists and a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Factors that are prognostic of early discontinuation of adjuvant chemotherapy among stage III colon cancer patients have yet to be described. To address this gap, a survey of medical oncologists and a systematic review and meta‐analysis were conducted.

Methods

A survey was distributed in March 2019 to medical oncologists who treat colon cancer within Alberta, Canada. Clinicians were asked to rank the prognostic importance of a set of variables using a Likert scale and agreement was quantified using a weighted Cohen's kappa. In addition, we systematically searched four databases up to July 2019. Meta‐analyses were conducted using a random‐effects model.

Results

Of the 25 clinicians who were sent the survey, 14 responded. Overall, there was no agreement regarding which variables were prognostic of early discontinuation (weighted Cohen's kappa = 0.12; 95% CI = 0.05‐0.18). From an initial 3927 articles, 18 investigations were identified for inclusion in our review. Based upon evidence from both the survey and the systematic review, the following four variables were identified as being prognostic of early discontinuation: (a) comorbidity (OR_{2+ vs 0} = 1.53; 95% CI = 1.30‐1.79); (b) performance status (OR_{ECOG 2+ vs 0‐1} = 1.33; 95%CI = 1.07‐1.65); (c) T stage (OR_{T4 vs T1‐2} = 1.57; 95% CI = 0.99‐2.50); and (d) chemotherapy regimen (estimates not pooled due to heterogeneity). In addition to these factors, there was some suggestion that age, marital status/social support, muscle mass, N stage, and tumor grade had prognostic value.

Conclusions

Current evidence is heterogeneous and limited. Additional research is needed to confirm our findings and to explore additional prognostic factors.

Use of proton pump inhibitors and mortality among Icelandic patients with prostate cancer

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are commonly used drugs among cancer patients. Due to conflicting reports on their safety, we aimed to determine whether PPI use is associated with mortality among prostate cancer patients. In this population-based cohort study, we identified incident diagnoses of prostate cancer between 2007 and 2012 (n = 1058). Follow-up was from 12 months after diagnosis until death, emigration or end the of study. Post-diagnosis use was defined as ≥2 filled prescriptions following diagnosis. We used time-dependent Cox proportional hazard regression models to compute hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for prostate cancer-specific and all-cause mortality associated with post-diagnosis use of PPIs. We identified 347 (32.8%) post-diagnosis PPI users and 711 (67.2%) non-users after diagnosis. Of the 347 patients using PPIs after diagnosis, 59 (17.0%) died due to any cause and 22 (6.3%) due to prostate cancer, compared with 144 (20.3%) and 76 (10.7%) among non-users after diagnosis, respectively. Post-diagnosis PPI use was not associated with prostate cancer-specific mortality (HR 0.88; 95% CI: 0.52-1.48) or all-cause mortality (HR 1.02; 95% CI: 0.73-1.43). Contrary to a previous report, this study did not find evidence of an association between post-diagnosis PPI use and mortality among prostate cancer patients.

The Clinician's Guide to Proton Pump Inhibitor Related Adverse Events

A substantial volume of literature exists linking proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use with a multitude of serious adverse events. There is uncertainty, however, over whether these associations are clinically important. Excessive concern about PPI-related adverse events may leave patients at risk of harm by leaving acid-related upper gastrointestinal disease untreated. Conversely, the risk of treatments may outweigh the benefits if any of the purported adverse events are directly caused by PPI use; this is of particular concern where indications for PPI use are not present. In this paper, we review the studies which have reported associations between adverse events and PPI use, discuss the proposed mechanisms of action, grade the confidence in whether these associations are truly causal, and provide advice regarding balancing the benefits of PPI use against their possible harms.

Concomitant use of capecitabine and proton pump inhibitors – Is it safe?

Background

Capecitabine is a commonly used oral chemotherapy agent. Recent data suggest that concurrent use of proton pump inhibitors may reduce the efficacy of capecitabine by decreasing its absorption through increased gastric pH. Since proton pump inhibitors are widely used, we evaluated the supportive evidence for the probability of occurrence and potential seriousness of this drug interaction.

Methods

The probability of occurrence was evaluated based on the clinical, pharmacokinetic and in vitro evidence using the Drug Interaction Probability Scale. The possibility of seriousness was assessed based on the potential impact on the therapeutic intent of capecitabine therapy.

Results

The probability of occurrence of the interaction is doubtful. Clinical findings from two retrospective post hoc analyses showed inconsistent trends towards reduced survival. Pharmacokinetics studies found no significant decrease in systemic capecitabine level with concurrent gastric acid suppression with antacid or food intake. In vitro data do not support the proposed mechanism of reduced capecitabine absorption due to increased gastric pH. The possibility of seriousness varies depending on the treatment intent of capecitabine therapy. The most and least serious possible outcome would be reduced possibility of cure or survival and symptom control, respectively.

Conclusion

Although the possible outcome may be serious, the probability of interaction between capecitabine and proton pump inhibitors is doubtful. Therefore, we suggest that intervention should be limited to minimal change to existing therapy plan. This may include routinely ascertaining the need for proton pump inhibitor use. Alternate acid suppressing agents may be considered based on the therapeutic intent of capecitabine therapy.

Association Between Adjuvant Chemotherapy Duration and Survival Among Patients With Stage II and III Colon Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

The results from the recent International Duration Evaluation of Adjuvant Therapy (IDEA) collaboration have led some clinicians to adopt shorter durations of adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with stage III colon cancer. The extent to which these findings are supported by other data is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized and observational studies investigating the association between the duration of adjuvant chemotherapy and survival among individuals diagnosed as having stage II and III colon cancer (PROSPERO protocol CRD42018108711]).

DATA SOURCES

Abstracts published in English between 2003 and 2018 within the MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and CINAHL databases were reviewed by 2 authors. Also searched were conference proceedings and the indexes of high-impact oncology journals.

STUDY SELECTION

Studies were excluded if they did not present original data; focused on animal populations, on cancers in sites other than the colon, or on patients with stage 0, I, or IV disease; did not examine a 5-flourouracil-based monotherapy or combination therapy; or did not evaluate the association between treatment duration and survival. The search identified 2341 articles, from which 2 randomized trials and 20 observational studies were included in the meta-analysis.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

This study followed the PRISMA and MOOSE reporting guidelines. The risk of bias was assessed by 2 authors using the Cochrane and Risk of Bias in Nonrandomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tools. The results were synthesized using a random-effects model.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary and secondary outcomes were overall survival and disease-free survival, respectively. It was hypothesized a priori that 3 months of chemotherapy would be as effective as 6 months of chemotherapy.

RESULTS

Twenty-two studies were included in the meta-analysis, representing 43 671 patients. The inclusion of patients with stage II disease or with rectal cancer was identified as a source of heterogeneity. After restricting the analysis to patients with stage III colon cancer, there was no association between the duration of chemotherapy and overall survival among studies involving FOLFOX (leucovorin calcium [folinic acid], fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin) or CAPOX (capecitabine plus oxaliplatin) regimens (hazard ratio [HR], 0.80; 95% CI, 0.58-1.09). Among studies focused exclusively on monotherapy, the standard 6-month regimen relative to a 3-month regimen was associated with improved survival (HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.52-0.68).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Shortened durations of chemotherapy may reduce survival among patients with stage III colon cancer prescribed monotherapy but not a combination regimen.

Impact of Concomitant Administration of Gastric Acid-Suppressive Agents and Pazopanib on Outcomes in Soft-Tissue Sarcoma Patients Treated within the EORTC 62043/62072 Trials

PURPOSE

Pazopanib is active in soft-tissue sarcoma (STS). Because pazopanib absorption is pH-dependent, coadministration with gastric acid-suppressive (GAS) agents such as proton pump inhibitors could affect exposure of pazopanib, and thereby its therapeutic effects.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The EORTC 62043 and 62072 were single-arm phase II and placebo-controlled phase III studies, respectively, of pazopanib in advanced STS. We first compared the outcome of patients treated with pazopanib with or without GAS agents for ≥80% of treatment duration, and subsequently using various thresholds. The impact of concomitant GAS therapy was assessed on progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) using multivariate Cox models, exploring and comparing also the potential effect on placebo-treated patients.

RESULTS

Of 333 eligible patients, 59 (17.7%) received concomitant GAS therapy for >80% of pazopanib treatment duration. Median PFS was shorter in GAS therapy users versus nonusers: 2.8 vs. 4.6 months, respectively [HR, 1.49; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.11-1.99; P = 0.01]. Concomitant administration of GAS therapy was also associated with a shorter median OS: 8.0 vs. 12.6 months (HR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.31-2.49; P < 0.01). The longer the overlapping use of GAS agents and pazopanib, the worse the outcome with pazopanib. These effects were not observed in placebo-treated patients (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.51-1.34; P = 0.43 for PFS and HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.48-1.48; P = 0.54 for OS).

CONCLUSIONS

Coadministration of long-term GAS therapy with pazopanib was associated with significantly shortened PFS and OS. Withdrawal of GAS agents must be considered whenever possible. Therapeutic drug monitoring of pazopanib plasma concentrations may be helpful for patients on pazopanib and GAS therapy.

Evaluation of the clinical impact of concomitant acid suppression therapy in colorectal cancer patients treated with capecitabine monotherapy

Background

Capecitabine is an oral chemotherapeutic agent used in colorectal cancer. Two prior studies found a negative impact with the concomitant use of proton pump inhibitor agents during treatment with capecitabine in patients with early colorectal and gastroesophageal cancers.

Objective

To determine if there is a clinical impact of the concomitant use of capecitabine and acid suppression therapy in patients with local and metastatic colorectal cancer.

Methods

This was a single-center retrospective cohort study of adult patients with colorectal cancer on capecitabine monotherapy between 2011 and 2017. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival were compared between patients on acid suppression therapy and those not on acid suppression therapy.

Results

A total of 70 patients were included. Patients on acid suppression therapy at capecitabine initiation (21%) had decreased progression-free survival versus those not on acid suppression therapy (HR 2.24, 95% CI 1.06–4.41, p = 0.035), after adjusting for disease severity and age. Acid suppression therapy use was associated with a numerical decrease in overall survival (HR 1.86, 95% CI 0.81–3.91, p = 0.14). In patients on any concomitant acid suppression therapy (25%), there was a decreased rate of progression-free survival (HR 6.21, 95% CI 2.56–14.32, p = 0.0001) but not overall survival (HR 1.64, 95% CI 0.68–3.54, p = 0.25) versus those without concomitant acid suppression therapy, after adjusting for age and disease severity.

Conclusions

Concurrent use of acid suppression therapy and capecitabine was associated with decreased progression-free survival, and there was a trend towards decreased overall survival. Due to the demonstrated potential of decreased efficacy, concurrent use of proton pump inhibitors or histamine 2 receptor antagonists should be avoided in colorectal cancer patients on treatment with capecitabine monotherapy.

Effects of Proton Pump Inhibitors on FOLFOX and CapeOx Regimens in Colorectal Cancer

BACKGROUND

First-line adjuvant chemotherapy options for early-stage colorectal cancer (CRC) include CapeOx (capecitabine, intravenous oxaliplatin) and FOLFOX (intravenous 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin). Capecitabine is an oral prodrug analog of 5-fluorouracil, and recent studies have suggested that proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) may detrimentally affect capecitabine efficacy. Conversely, some literature suggests that PPIs may negatively affect CRC itself. To gain insight into the nature of PPIs' effect on capecitabine and CRC, we investigated their effects on effectiveness of CapeOx versus FOLFOX chemotherapy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We conducted a retrospective chart review of 389 patients with stage II-III CRC who received adjuvant CapeOx or FOLFOX from 2004 to 2013. Information regarding PPI receipt, chemotherapy, and patient outcomes from medical records was analyzed.

RESULTS

Three-year recurrence-free survival was significantly lower in CapeOx-treated PPI recipients than non-PPI recipients (69.5 vs. 82.6%; P = .029). Unadjusted analysis showed that CapeOx-treated PPI recipients were twice as likely to experience cancer recurrence or death as CapeOx-treated non-PPI recipients (hazard ratio = 2.03; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-3.88; P = .033). FOLFOX-treated PPI recipients had a non-statistically significant difference in 3-year recurrence-free survival versus non-PPI recipients (82.9 vs. 61.7%; P = .066) and a non-statistically significant difference in recurrence/death (hazard ratio = 0.51; 95% confidence interval, 0.25-1.06; P = .071). No significant differences were seen in overall survival between groups.

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest PPIs negatively affected recurrence-free survival in CapeOx-treated CRC patients and yielded no significant effects among FOLFOX-treated patients, potentially implicating a pharmacokinetic interaction between PPIs and capecitabine. No overall survival effects were seen. Given PPIs' widespread use, further studies are required to corroborate our findings.

Association of Proton Pump Inhibitors and Capecitabine Efficacy in Advanced Gastroesophageal Cancer: Secondary Analysis of the TRIO-013/LOGiC Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Capecitabine is an oral cytotoxic chemotherapeutic commonly used across cancer subtypes. As with other oral medications though, it may suffer from drug interactions that could impair its absorption.

Objective

To determine if gastric acid suppressants such as proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) may impair capecitabine efficacy.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This secondary analysis of TRIO-013, a phase III randomized trial, compares capecitabine and oxaliplatin (CapeOx) with or without lapatinib in 545 patients with ERBB2/HER2-positive metastatic gastroesophageal cancer (GEC); patients were randomized 1:1 between CapeOx with or without lapatinib. Proton pump inhibitor use was identified by medication records. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were compared between patients treated with PPIs vs patients who were not. Specific subgroups were accounted for, such as younger age (<60 years), Asian ethnicity, female sex, and disease stage (metastatic/advanced) in multivariate Cox proportional hazards modeling. The TRIO-013 trial accrued and randomized patients between June 2008 and January 2012; this analysis took place in January 2014.

Interventions

Patients were divided based on PPI exposure.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Primary study outcome was PFS and OS between patients treated with PPIs vs patients who were not. Secondary outcomes included disease response rates and toxicities.

Results

Of the 545 patients with GEC (median age, 60 years; 406 men [74%]) included in the study, 229 received PPIs (42.0%) and were evenly distributed between arms. In the placebo arm, PPI-treated patients had poorer median PFS, 4.2 vs 5.7 months (hazard ratio [HR], 1.55; 95% CI, 1.29-1.81, P < .001); OS, 9.2 vs 11.3 months (HR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.06-1.62; P = .04); and disease control rate (83% vs 72%; P = .02) vs patients not treated with PPIs. In multivariate analysis considering age, race, disease stage, and sex, PPI-treated patients had poorer PFS (HR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.42-1.94; P < .001) and OS (HR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.11-1.71; P = .001). In patients treated with CapeOx and lapatinib, PPIs had less effect on PFS (HR, 1.08; P = .54) and OS (HR, 1.26; P = .10); however, multivariate analysis in this group demonstrated a significant difference in OS (HR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.06-1.66; P = .03).

Conclusions and Relevance

Proton pump inhibitors negatively effected capecitabine efficacy by possibly raising gastric pH levels, leading to altered dissolution and absorption. These results are consistent with previous erlotinib and sunitinib studies. Whether PPIs affected lapatinib is unclear given concurrent capecitabine. Given capecitabine's prevalence in treatment breast cancer and colon cancer, further studies are under way.

Trial Registration

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00680901.

Cellular acidification as a new approach to cancer treatment and to the understanding and therapeutics of neurodegenerative diseases

During the last few years, the understanding of the dysregulated hydrogen ion dynamics and reversed proton gradient of cancer cells has resulted in a new and integral pH-centric paradigm in oncology, a translational model embracing from cancer etiopathogenesis to treatment. The abnormalities of intracellular alkalinization along with extracellular acidification of all types of solid tumors and leukemic cells have never been described in any other disease and now appear to be a specific hallmark of malignancy. As a consequence of this intracellular acid-base homeostatic failure, the attempt to induce cellular acidification using proton transport inhibitors and other intracellular acidifiers of different origins is becoming a new therapeutic concept and selective target of cancer treatment, both as a metabolic mediator of apoptosis and in the overcoming of multiple drug resistance (MDR). Importantly, there is increasing data showing that different ion channels contribute to mediate significant aspects of cancer pH regulation and etiopathogenesis. Finally, we discuss the extension of this new pH-centric oncological paradigm into the opposite metabolic and homeostatic acid-base situation found in human neurodegenerative diseases (HNDDs), which opens novel concepts in the prevention and treatment of HNDDs through the utilization of a cohort of neural and non-neural derived hormones and human growth factors.

Proton pump inhibition and cancer therapeutics: A specific tumor targeting or it is a phenomenon secondary to a systemic buffering?

One of the unsolved mysteries in oncology includes the strategies that cancer cells adopt to cope with an adverse microenvironment. However, we knew, from the Warburg's discovery that through their metabolism based on sugar fermentation, cancer cells acidify their microenvironment and this progressive acidification induces a selective pressure, leading to the development of very malignant cells entirely armed to survive in the hostile microenvironment generated by their own metabolism. In the last decades a primordial role for proton exchangers has been supported as a key tumor advantage in facing off the acidic milieu. Proton exchangers do not allow intracellular acidification through a continuous elimination of H+ either outside the cells or within the internal vacuoles. This article wants to comment a translational process through that led to the preclinical demonstration that a class of proton pump inhibitors (PPI) exploited worldwide for peptic ulcer treatment and gastroprotection are indeed powerful chemosensitizers as well. In this process we achieved the clinical proof of concept that PPI may well be included in new anti-cancer strategies with a solid background and rationale.